On 2011-10-07 04:01, Adrian Farrel wrote: ... > I am aware that there are comments that an IETF design team should not have been > shut down without consent from the ITU-T. I find, however, that when the ITU-T > agreed to develop MPLS-TP in cooperation with the IETF within the IETF and using > IETF process, it is only to be expected that IETF design teams are managed > according to normal IETF practice. At the risk of wading even further into muddy waters, I would like to underline that Adrian is indeed describing normal IETF practice and that this practice is specifically intended to ensure openness and transparency. I want to mention an older example that occurred when I was co-chairing the diffserv WG. It didn't involve a second SDO but otherwise it was quite similar. We had RFC 2598 (a proposed standard). We had people in the WG who claimed that it was underspecified and inaccurate. There were diverging views about how to fix this, so we set up a design team. The design team came up with a proposed update, but there were still diverging views. So the issue was brought back to the WG as a whole. The result was two RFCs: RFC 3246 (a proposed standard that obsoleted 2598) and RFC 3248 (an informational document describing the rejected alternative, for the record). As a matter of fact, RFC 3248 describes the design team proposal, which is the point of my story. The design team process is *not* what counts; it's rough consensus in the open WG discussion that counts. When ITU-T agreed to work in the IETF process, they agreed to that. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf